Normally the purpose of a war is to wipe out the enemy's offensive and defensive capabilities and overthrow them. If you wanted to kill hundreds of thousands of non-military personnel then that makes you a homicidal maniac. Maybe I have a twisted view on things but homicidal maniacs aren't good-guys in my book.
Course, I'd probably use maximum force too. I don't value innocent lives as much as it sounds.
i haven't figured it out yet, but there's bound to be a gigantic hole in the 'open source loses jobs' claim. Whenever somebody explains how hiding information brings prophet, it blows up in their face and they find out they were completely wrong. M$ is losing their influence on the public; people aren't so gullible anymore; keeping customers in the dark is causing an inevitable backlash. How many jobs would be lost from open source, compared how many lost from developers and experts steering clear of buying MS products at all?
There's know way of telling how many lives were saved as a result of the war ending then compared to going on for however longer it would have went without it.
We do know that about 140,000 innocent lives were taken because of it.
Oh, and maybe a few military bases, if it matters.
Everyone else at least gets a +2 for pointing out the painfully obvious. Must've gotten a deadbeat moderator. Too bad this system passes out mod points to any random moron.
You can't convince me that a rant about why Bush is a bad president is going to be as important as a book by Chomsky detailing and documenting exactly why Bush is a bad president
They're both basically the same, only the book has been reviewed and the publisher has likely pushed a lot of changes to make it politically correct, and it has only the view of a single person, and for whatever reason, you felt the need to pay for that one single opinion.
And I'd debunk the Usenet/IRC/WWW etc. stuff but you've already determined that you can't be convinced.
America uses the internet way more often. Driving to a book store, standing around looking at covers and forking over a few bucks for something you can find in a Google search seems less intelligent to anyone with half a mind. Slower people might think it's more intelligent to waste your time doing this stuff, but that's not saying much.
Heh, yeah the world's coming to an end because you don't want to waste your time droning through the eight-page intro of a 300-page book about how to optimize HTML for older browsers. "We know the cover says 'learn quick and easy' but we had to make this at least 250 pages, so we'll get around to the real subject, maybe, after we discuss the history of the <i> tag and how it gradually evolved into the much more capable <em> tag and...." Yeah well, I'm sure cavemen had much longer attention spans.
Oh how the school system wishes we could go back to those days.
Nothing wrong with reading on the Internet, but most (99.99+%) of it is junk food.
At least when your idea of the internet is the 'lesbian dog naked porn vaginas' of aol.com and browsing Google images with SafeSearch off. Either way, I'm sure you'll learn how to use the net sooner or later.
I think, maybe, you should put your money where your mouth is. Dig through the pile of bullshit at Barnes and Nobles or a nearby library. Look for the slightest hint of useful information, or just use that pile of books you bought when you were trying to learn out how to print a line of HTML from PHP.
Better yet, write a manuscript, sell yourself to the publishing industry and try to distribute a book to all the brilliant lifeless readers out there. Write about - I dunno - how utterly useful books are and how they're not just there to shock people and make publishers money. Maybe they'll put it in between 'Lose 700 Pounds in One Week' and 'Why Liberals Will Destroy World With Their Dag Gone Frickin' Logic'.
Personally I'd put it in the Fantasy isle. I'd say, just go back to using the internet to mindlessly complain about the internet
We read books because we're told to do so. No reason. The publishing industry needs to keep up the 'you're stoopid if you don't read marks on paper' propaganda as long as they can now that people are realizing how useless it can be compared to the internet.
The reason they started the whole censorship rush is for the same reason the government does everything: Money. Dursh.
See, what does a city government do when it wants more money? Up the penalty of parking tickets, encourage police to begin 'cracking down' on all the acts the government can cash in on, and introduce new fines. The FCC wants money too y'know. So the opportunity abounds, when Janet Jackson has a nipple slip and Howard Stern uses the same language as Opara. So voila, things fall together and FCC finds an excuse to fine people for saying anything the FCC doesn't want them to say. Or, rather, what they'd love to hear them say so they can get more cash in their pockets.
Painfully true. Did anyone read the article by chance? There were lots of bad percentages, according to what Secunia says. Plenty of vulnerabilities, according to what Secunia says. And all sorts of flaws, accor-- you know. Anything specific? Nope. Why isn't anybody stepping forward to point out OS X's many vulnerabilities? The same reason nobody steps forward to point out how the sun revolves around Earth.
The article and claims wherein are humorous and all; maybe a little fun to read, but I'd say it lacks a punchline. And if per chance they're trying to boost the sales of Windows or other systems, they could try harder than this. If all you have to go on is how many potential vulnerabilities a system could possibly have if maybe more people went after it, then I should quit typing because you're computer's about to crash anyway.
Heh, well, checks and balances is the government monitoring the government. Quite a system, eh? Like having prisoners guarding the prison.
And even with the system, there are all sorts of places in one section of government that other sections can't see, so you can rarely count on the one or two good politicians out there to keep things clean. So let's just face it: anything a government promises is going to be broken sooner or later. Maybe a couple of guarantees are kept, but everything else goes out the window as soon as the opportunity comes. Do you know of any inalienable rights that haven't been alienated? Me neither.
Some governments might be more stable, but that's not saying much.
Wahaha, yeah, grandparent post gave the most hilarious use of the word 'stole' I've ever heard. And that's saying a lot, now that everything under the sun from receiving data to having a camcorder in the wrong place is a lawful equivalent to knocking over a bank.
I think the old 'tinfoil hat' ploy used to do a good job of scaring people away from disobeying or questioning the government. But I think we've gotten more intelligent and now, suddenly, it's not fooling anyone. The act has coughed blood and died. Most people have crawled out of the hole and just aren't falling for the 'obey me or you wear tinfoil' act anymore.
So, it looks like somebody's going to have to find a new scarecrow to keep the more cowardly under their control. Maybe cannibalism would work, or good old 'they eat babies' trick never failed in the past. It's like the tinfoil ploy, only with more umph to it. Let's try and see how well it works.
You make it seem as though you are required to have ID
I'm not making it seem that way, I'm pointing it out. It's like if I said '2+2=4', I wouldn't be 'making it seem that way'. Seems like you're once again looking for an excuse to blow flames in any random direction. I try to calm things down and find a mid-point to the two posts, but oh gee, the response is 'OMG alarmist outraged maniac out to destroy the world!'
Anyway if you can't put any logic or reason behind all the 'jail r not punishment' assertions then you're wasting my and everyone else's time.
No. Dont identify yourself, go to jail till they can ascertian your identity
That's basically what I just said, only you put a 'no' before it and added more words. In fact most of what you just stated was a confirmation of what I posted. I can't find any conflicts in it.
I... think it's their way of saying, 'We've got too many customers. Go away. Buy some faster more competent hardware from a company that's less likely to swindle you. Here, IBM sounds good, doesn't it? Now move along.'
Pretty much all of that's true, legally, but not practically. Once again, whether or not you're put in a cell depends on what the police officer says is the reason. It hasn't much to do with the real reason.
I think we're both saying the same thing with different words.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally the purpose of a war is to wipe out the enemy's offensive and defensive capabilities and overthrow them. If you wanted to kill hundreds of thousands of non-military personnel then that makes you a homicidal maniac. Maybe I have a twisted view on things but homicidal maniacs aren't good-guys in my book. Course, I'd probably use maximum force too. I don't value innocent lives as much as it sounds.
i haven't figured it out yet, but there's bound to be a gigantic hole in the 'open source loses jobs' claim. Whenever somebody explains how hiding information brings prophet, it blows up in their face and they find out they were completely wrong. M$ is losing their influence on the public; people aren't so gullible anymore; keeping customers in the dark is causing an inevitable backlash. How many jobs would be lost from open source, compared how many lost from developers and experts steering clear of buying MS products at all?
We do know that about 140,000 innocent lives were taken because of it.
Oh, and maybe a few military bases, if it matters.
But you wouldn't know about that being a mindless anonymous coward.
Everyone else at least gets a +2 for pointing out the painfully obvious. Must've gotten a deadbeat moderator. Too bad this system passes out mod points to any random moron.
They're both basically the same, only the book has been reviewed and the publisher has likely pushed a lot of changes to make it politically correct, and it has only the view of a single person, and for whatever reason, you felt the need to pay for that one single opinion.
And I'd debunk the Usenet/IRC/WWW etc. stuff but you've already determined that you can't be convinced.
America uses the internet way more often. Driving to a book store, standing around looking at covers and forking over a few bucks for something you can find in a Google search seems less intelligent to anyone with half a mind. Slower people might think it's more intelligent to waste your time doing this stuff, but that's not saying much.
Heh, yeah the world's coming to an end because you don't want to waste your time droning through the eight-page intro of a 300-page book about how to optimize HTML for older browsers. "We know the cover says 'learn quick and easy' but we had to make this at least 250 pages, so we'll get around to the real subject, maybe, after we discuss the history of the <i> tag and how it gradually evolved into the much more capable <em> tag and...." Yeah well, I'm sure cavemen had much longer attention spans.
Oh how the school system wishes we could go back to those days.
At least when your idea of the internet is the 'lesbian dog naked porn vaginas' of aol.com and browsing Google images with SafeSearch off. Either way, I'm sure you'll learn how to use the net sooner or later.
I think, maybe, you should put your money where your mouth is. Dig through the pile of bullshit at Barnes and Nobles or a nearby library. Look for the slightest hint of useful information, or just use that pile of books you bought when you were trying to learn out how to print a line of HTML from PHP.
Better yet, write a manuscript, sell yourself to the publishing industry and try to distribute a book to all the brilliant lifeless readers out there. Write about - I dunno - how utterly useful books are and how they're not just there to shock people and make publishers money. Maybe they'll put it in between 'Lose 700 Pounds in One Week' and 'Why Liberals Will Destroy World With Their Dag Gone Frickin' Logic'.
Personally I'd put it in the Fantasy isle. I'd say, just go back to using the internet to mindlessly complain about the internet
We read books because we're told to do so. No reason. The publishing industry needs to keep up the 'you're stoopid if you don't read marks on paper' propaganda as long as they can now that people are realizing how useless it can be compared to the internet.
It's just another business scarecrow.
The reason they started the whole censorship rush is for the same reason the government does everything: Money. Dursh.
See, what does a city government do when it wants more money? Up the penalty of parking tickets, encourage police to begin 'cracking down' on all the acts the government can cash in on, and introduce new fines. The FCC wants money too y'know. So the opportunity abounds, when Janet Jackson has a nipple slip and Howard Stern uses the same language as Opara. So voila, things fall together and FCC finds an excuse to fine people for saying anything the FCC doesn't want them to say. Or, rather, what they'd love to hear them say so they can get more cash in their pockets.
Gyahahaha! Aha! Ahahahaha! Wow man, that's... that's just...
Oh wait, you're serious.
I wonder if you can mark posts +5 Flaimbate
Painfully true. Did anyone read the article by chance? There were lots of bad percentages, according to what Secunia says. Plenty of vulnerabilities, according to what Secunia says. And all sorts of flaws, accor-- you know. Anything specific? Nope. Why isn't anybody stepping forward to point out OS X's many vulnerabilities? The same reason nobody steps forward to point out how the sun revolves around Earth.
The article and claims wherein are humorous and all; maybe a little fun to read, but I'd say it lacks a punchline. And if per chance they're trying to boost the sales of Windows or other systems, they could try harder than this. If all you have to go on is how many potential vulnerabilities a system could possibly have if maybe more people went after it, then I should quit typing because you're computer's about to crash anyway.
I wonder if the ticket to being modded up is to say that.. I also wonder how boring a place would have to be to just watch anything with no impact.
Heh, well, checks and balances is the government monitoring the government. Quite a system, eh? Like having prisoners guarding the prison.
And even with the system, there are all sorts of places in one section of government that other sections can't see, so you can rarely count on the one or two good politicians out there to keep things clean. So let's just face it: anything a government promises is going to be broken sooner or later. Maybe a couple of guarantees are kept, but everything else goes out the window as soon as the opportunity comes. Do you know of any inalienable rights that haven't been alienated? Me neither.
Some governments might be more stable, but that's not saying much.
Wahaha, yeah, grandparent post gave the most hilarious use of the word 'stole' I've ever heard. And that's saying a lot, now that everything under the sun from receiving data to having a camcorder in the wrong place is a lawful equivalent to knocking over a bank.
In MPAA America, theater watches You!
Pardon.
You... used the phrase 'rather than' in place of 'and also'.
I think the old 'tinfoil hat' ploy used to do a good job of scaring people away from disobeying or questioning the government. But I think we've gotten more intelligent and now, suddenly, it's not fooling anyone. The act has coughed blood and died. Most people have crawled out of the hole and just aren't falling for the 'obey me or you wear tinfoil' act anymore.
So, it looks like somebody's going to have to find a new scarecrow to keep the more cowardly under their control. Maybe cannibalism would work, or good old 'they eat babies' trick never failed in the past. It's like the tinfoil ploy, only with more umph to it. Let's try and see how well it works.
I'm not making it seem that way, I'm pointing it out. It's like if I said '2+2=4', I wouldn't be 'making it seem that way'. Seems like you're once again looking for an excuse to blow flames in any random direction. I try to calm things down and find a mid-point to the two posts, but oh gee, the response is 'OMG alarmist outraged maniac out to destroy the world!'
Anyway if you can't put any logic or reason behind all the 'jail r not punishment' assertions then you're wasting my and everyone else's time.
Then you said:
No. Dont identify yourself, go to jail till they can ascertian your identity
That's basically what I just said, only you put a 'no' before it and added more words. In fact most of what you just stated was a confirmation of what I posted. I can't find any conflicts in it.
I... think it's their way of saying, 'We've got too many customers. Go away. Buy some faster more competent hardware from a company that's less likely to swindle you. Here, IBM sounds good, doesn't it? Now move along.'
Pretty much all of that's true, legally, but not practically. Once again, whether or not you're put in a cell depends on what the police officer says is the reason. It hasn't much to do with the real reason.
I think we're both saying the same thing with different words.
That's like migrating to Ethiopia to escape starvation.